AAH GRAPHICS, INC.
/ (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-30-2001 / 10:39
A History of Instructional
Design and Technology:
Part II: A History of Instructional Design
Robert A. Reiser
This is the second of a two-part article that
discusses the history of the field of
instructional design and technology in the
United States. The first part, which focused on
the history of instructional media, appeared in
the previous issue of this journal (volume 49,
number 1). This part of the article focuses on
the history of instructional design. Starting
with a description of the efforts to develop
training programs during World War II, and
continuing on through the publication of some
of the first instructional design models in the
1960s and 1970s, major events in the
development of the instructional design
process are described. Factors that have
affected the field of instructional design over
the last two decades, including increasing
interest in cognitive psychology,
microcomputers, performance technology, and
constructivism, are also described.
ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2001, pp. 57–67 ISSN 1042–1629
In Part I of this article, I presented the follow-
ing definition of the field of instructional design
and technology:
The field of instructional design and technology
encompasses the analysis of learning and performance
problems, and the design, development, implementa-
tion, evaluation and management of instructional and
noninstructional processes and resources intended to
improve learning and performance in a variety of set-
tings, particularly educational institutions and the
workplace. Professionals in the field of instructional
design and technology often use systematic instruc-
tional design procedures and employ a variety of
instructional media to accomplish their goals. More-
over, in recent years, they have paid increasing atten-
tion to noninstructional solutions to some performance
problems. Research and theory related to each of the
aforementioned areas is also an important part of the
field. (Reiser, in press)
As was pointed out in Part I, the major fea-
tures of this definition include (a) its listing of six
categories of activities or practices (analysis,
design, development, implementation, evalua-
tion, and management) often associated with the
field; (b) its identification of research and theory,
as well as practice, as important aspects of the
profession; and (c) its recognition of the influ-
ence the performance technology movement has
had on professional practices. Moreover, the
definition highlights two practices that have,
over the years, formed the core of the field.
These two practices are (a) the use of media for
instructional purposes and (b) the use of systematic
instructional design procedures (often simply
called instructional design). As was mentioned in
Part I, although many have argued about the
value of employing these practices, they remain
as the key defining elements of the field of
57
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-30-2001 / 10:39
58
instructional design and technology. Individu-
als involved in the field are those who spend a
significant portion of their time working with
media, or with tasks associated with systematic
instructional design procedures, or with both.
In Part I, I discussed the history of instruc-
tional media. In Part II, I will focus on the history
of instructional design. This is a natural separa-
tion because, from a historical perspective, most
of the practices related to instructional media
have occurred independent of developments
associated with instructional design. It should
also be noted that although many important
events in the history of the field have taken place
in other countries, the emphasis in both parts of
this article is on events that have taken place in
the United States.
HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
Over the past four decades, a variety of sets of
systematic instructional design procedures (or
models) have been developed, and have been
referred to by such terms as the systems approach,
instructional systems design (ISD), instructional
development, and instructional design (which is the
term I will usually employ in this article).
Although the specific combination of proce-
dures often varies from one instructional design
model to the next, most of the models include
the analysis of instructional problems, and the
design, development, implementation and eval-
uation of instructional procedures and materials
intended to solve those problems. How did this
instructional design process come into being?
This article will focus on answering that ques-
tion.
The Origins of Instructional Design:
World War II
The origins of instructional design procedures
have been traced to World War II (Dick, 1987).
During the war, a large number of psychologists
and educators who had training and experience
in conducting experimental research were called
on to conduct research and develop training
materials for the military services. These indi-
ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2
viduals, including Robert Gagné, Leslie Briggs,
John Flanagan, and many others, exerted con-
siderable influence on the characteristics of the
training materials that were developed, basing
much of their work on instructional principles
derived from research and theory on instruction,
learning, and human behavior (Baker, 1973;
Dick, 1987; Saettler, 1990).
Moreover, psychologists used their knowl-
edge of evaluation and testing to help assess the
skills of trainees and select the individuals who
were most likely to benefit from particular train-
ing programs. For example, at one point in the
war, the failure rate in a particular flight training
program was unacceptably high. In order to
overcome this problem, psychologists examined
the general intellectual, psychomotor and per-
ceptual skills of individuals who were able to
successfully perform the skills taught in the pro-
gram, and then developed tests that measured
those traits. These tests were used to screen can-
didates for the program, with those individuals
who scored poorly being directed into other pro-
grams. As a result of using this examination of
entry skills as a screening device, the military
was able to significantly increase the percentage
of personnel who successfully completed the
program (Gagné, personal communication,
1985).
Immediately after World War II, many of the
psychologists responsible for the success of the
military training programs continued to work
on solving instructional problems. Organiza-
tions such as the American Institutes for
Research were established for this purpose. Dur-
ing the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, psy-
chologists working for such organizations
started viewing training as a system, and devel-
oped a number of innovative analysis, design,
and evaluation procedures (Dick, 1987). For
example, during this period, a detailed task
analysis methodology was developed by Robert
B. Miller while he worked on projects for the
military (Miller,1953, 1962). His work and that of
other early pioneers in the instructional design
field is summarized in Psychological Principles in
System Development, edited by Gagné (1962b).
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-30-2001 / 10:39
A HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
More Early Developments: The
Programmed Instruction Movement
The programmed instruction movement, which
ran from the mid-1950s through the mid-1960s,
proved to be another major factor in the devel-
opment of the systems approach. In 1954, B.F.
Skinner’s article entitled The Science of Learning
and the Art of Teaching began what might be
called a minor revolution in the field of educa-
tion. In this article and later ones (e.g., Skin-
ner,1958), Skinner described his ideas regarding
the requirements for increasing human learning
and the desired characteristics of effective
instructional materials. Skinner stated that such
materials, called programmed instructional
materials, should present instruction in small
steps, require overt responses to frequent ques-
tions, provide immediate feedback, and allow
for learner self-pacing. Moreover, because each
step was small, it was thought that learners
would answer all questions correctly and thus
be positively reinforced by the feedback they
received.
The process Skinner and others (cf. Lumsda-
ine & Glaser, 1960) described for developing
programmed instruction exemplified an empiri-
cal approach to solving educational problems:
Data regarding the effectiveness of the materials
were collected, instructional weaknesses were
identified, and the materials were revised
accordingly. In addition to this trial and revision
procedure, which today would be called forma-
tive evaluation, the process for developing pro-
grammed materials involved many of the steps
found in current instructional design models. As
Heinich (1970) indicated:
Programmed instruction has been credited by some
with introducing the systems approach to education.
By analyzing and breaking down content into specific
behavioral objectives, devising the necessary steps to
achieve the objectives, setting up procedures to try out
and revise the steps, and validating the program
against attainment of the objectives, programmed
instruction succeeded in creating a small but effective
self-instructional system—a technology of instruction.
(p. 123)
59
The Popularization of Behavioral
Objectives
As indicated above, those involved in designing
programmed instructional materials often
began by identifying the specific objectives
learners who used the materials would be
expected to attain. In the early 1960s, Robert
Mager, recognizing the need to teach educators
how to write objectives, wrote Preparing Objec-
tives for Programmed Instruction (1962). This
book, now in its third edition (Mager,1997), has
proved to be very popular, and has sold more
than 1.5 million copies. The book describes how
to write objectives that include a description of
desired learner behaviors, the conditions under
which the behaviors are to be performed, and
the standards (criteria) by which the behaviors
are to be judged. Many current-day adherents of
the instructional design process advocate the
preparation of objectives that contain these three
elements.
Although Mager popularized the use of
objectives, the concept was discussed and used
by educators at least as far back as the early
1900s. Among those early advocates of the use of
clearly stated objectives were Bobbitt, Charters,
and Burk (Gagné, 1965a). However, Ralph Tyler
has often been considered the father of the
behavioral objectives movement. In 1934, he
wrote, “Each objective must be defined in terms
which clarify the kind of behavior which the
course should help to develop” (cited in
Walbesser & Eisenberg, 1972). During the
famous Eight-Year Study that Tyler directed, it
was found that in those instances in which
schools did specify objectives, those objectives
were usually quite vague. By the end of the proj-
ect, however, it was demonstrated that objec-
tives could be clarified by stating them in
behavioral terms, and those objectives could
serve as the basis for evaluating the effectiveness
of instruction (Borich, 1980; Tyler, 1975).
In the 1950s, behavioral objectives were given
another boost when Benjamin Bloom and his
colleagues published the Taxonomy of Educa-
tional Objectives (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, &
Krathwohl, 1956). The authors of this work indi-
cated that within the cognitive domain there
were various types of learning outcomes, that
objectives could be classified according to the
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-30-2001 / 10:39
60
type of learner behavior described therein, and
that there was a hierarchical relationship among
the various types of outcomes. Moreover, they
indicated that tests should be designed to mea-
sure each of these types of outcomes. As we shall
see in the next two sections of this article, similar
notions described by other educators had signif-
icant implications for the systematic design of
instruction.
The Criterion-Referenced Testing
Movement
In the early 1960s, another important factor in
the development of the instructional design pro-
cess was the emergence of criterion-referenced
testing. Until that time, most tests, called norm-
referenced tests, were designed to spread out the
performance of learners, resulting in some stu-
dents doing well on a test and others doing
poorly. In contrast, a criterion-referenced test is
intended to measure how well an individual can
perform a particular behavior or set of behav-
iors, irrespective of how well others perform. As
early as 1932, Tyler had indicated that tests
could be used for such purposes (Dale, 1967).
Later, Flanagan (1951) and Ebel (1962) discussed
the differences between such tests and the more
familiar norm-referenced measures. However,
Robert Glaser (1963; Glaser & Klaus, 1962) was
the first to use the term criterion-referenced mea-
sures. In discussing such measures, Glaser (1963)
indicated that they could be used to assess stu-
dent entry-level behavior and to determine the
extent to which students had acquired the
behaviors an instructional program was
designed to teach. The use of criterion-refer-
enced tests for these two purposes is a central
feature of instructional design procedures.
Robert M. Gagné: Domains of Learning,
Events of Instruction, and Hierarchical
Analysis
Another important event in the history of
instructional design occurred in 1965, with the
publication of the first edition of The Conditions
of Learning, written by Robert Gagné (1965b). In
ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2
this book, Gagné described five domains, or
types, of learning outcomes—verbal informa-
tion, intellectual skills, psychomotor skills,
attitudes, and cognitive strategies—each of
which required a different set of conditions to
promote learning. Gagné also provided detailed
descriptions of these conditions for each type of
learning outcome.
In the same volume, Gagné also described
nine events of instruction, or teaching activities,
that he considered essential for promoting the
attainment of any type of learning outcome.
Gagné also described which instructional events
were particularly crucial for which type of out-
come, and discussed the circumstances under
which particular events could be excluded. Now
in its fourth edition (Gagné, 1985), Gagné’s
description of the various types of learning out-
comes and the events of instruction remain cor-
nerstones of instructional design practices.
Gagné’s work in the area of learning hierar-
chies and hierarchical analysis also has had a
significant impact on the instructional design
field. In the early 1960s and later in his career
(e.g., Gagné, 1962a, 1985; Gagné, Briggs, and
Wager, 1992; Gagné & Medsker, 1996), Gagné
indicated that skills within the intellectual skills
domain have a hierarchical relationship to each
other, so that in order to readily learn to perform
a superordinate skill, one would first have to
master the skills subordinate to it. This concept
leads to the important notion that instruction
should be designed so as to ensure that learners
acquire subordinate skills before they attempt to
acquire superordinate ones. Gagné went on to
describe a hierarchical analysis process (also
called learning task analysis or instructional task
analysis) for identifying subordinate skills. This
process remains a key feature in many instruc-
tional design models.
Sputnik: The Indirect Launching of
Formative Evaluation
In 1957, when the Soviet Union launched Sput-
nik, the first orbiting space satellite, there began
a series of events that would eventually have a
major impact on the instructional design pro-
cess. In response to the launching of Sputnik, the
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-30-2001 / 10:39
A HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
United States government, shocked by the suc-
cess of the Soviet effort, poured millions of dol-
lars into improving math and science education
in the United States. The instructional materials
developed with these funds were usually writ-
ten by subject matter experts and produced
without tryouts with learners. Years later, in the
mid-1960s, when it was discovered that many of
these materials were not particularly effective,
Michael Scriven (1967) pointed to the need to try
out drafts of instructional materials with learn-
ers prior to the time the materials were in their
final form. Scriven indicated that this process
would enable educators to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of materials while they were still in
their formative stages and, if necessary, revise
them before they were produced in their final
form. Scriven named this tryout and revision
process formative evaluation, and contrasted it
with what he labeled summative evaluation, the
testing of instructional materials after they are in
their final form.
Although the terms formative and summa-
tive evaluation were coined by Scriven, the dis-
tinction between these two approaches was
previously made by Lee Cronbach (1963). More-
over, during the 1940s and the 1950s, a number
of educators, such as Arthur Lumsdaine, Mark
May, and C.R. Carpenter, described procedures
for evaluating instructional materials that were
still in their formative stages (Cambre, 1981).
In spite of the writings of some educators,
very few of the instructional products devel-
oped in the 1940s and 1950s went through any
sort of formative evaluation process. This situa-
tion changed somewhat in the late 1950s and
through the 1960s, as many of the programmed
instructional materials developed during that
period were tested while they were being devel-
oped. However, authors such as Susan Markle
(1967) decried a lack of rigor in testing processes.
In light of this problem, Markle prescribed
detailed procedures for evaluating materials
both during and after the design process. These
procedures are much like the formative and
summative evaluation techniques generally pre-
scribed today.
61
Early Instructional Design Models
In the early and mid-1960s, the concepts that
were being developed in such areas as task anal-
ysis, objective specification, and criterion-refer-
enced testing were linked together to form
processes, or models, for systematically
designing instructional materials. Among the
first individuals to describe such models were
Gagné (1962b), Glaser (1962, 1965), and Silvern
(1964). These individuals used terms such as
instructional design, system development, systematic
instruction, and instructional system to describe
the models they created. Other instructional
design models created and employed during
this decade included those described by Banathy
(1968), Barson (1967), and Hamerus (1968).
The 1970s: Burgeoning of Interest in the
Systems Approach
During the 1970s, the number of instructional
design models greatly increased. Building upon
the works of those who preceded them, many
individuals created new models for systemati-
cally designing instruction (e.g., Dick & Carey,
1978; Gagné & Briggs, 1974; Gerlach & Ely, 1971;
Kemp, 1971). Indeed, by the end of the decade,
more than 40 such models were identified
(Andrews and Goodson, 1980). A detailed dis-
cussion of a few of these models, as well as a
number of those developed in the 1980s and
1990s, is contained in Gustafson and Branch
(1997b).
During the 1970s, interest in the instructional
design process flourished in a variety of differ-
ent sectors. In the mid 1970s, several branches of
the United States military adopted an instruc-
tional design model (Branson et al., 1975)
intended to guide the development of training
materials within those branches. In academia
during the first half of the decade, many instruc-
tional improvement centers were created with
the intent of helping faculty use media and
instructional design procedures to improve the
quality of their instruction (Gaff, 1975; Gustaf-
son & Bratton, 1984). Moreover, many graduate
programs in instructional design were created
(Partridge & Tennyson, 1979; Redfield & Dick,
1984; Silber, 1982). In business and industry,
many organizations, seeing the value of using
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-30-2001 / 10:39
62
instructional design to improve the quality of
training, began adopting the approach (cf.
Mager, 1977; Miles, 1983). Internationally, many
nations, such as South Korea, Liberia, and Indo-
nesia, saw the benefits of using instructional
design to solve instructional problems in those
countries (Chadwick, 1986; Morgan, 1989).
These nations supported the design of new
instructional programs, created organizations to
support the use of instructional design, and pro-
vided support to individuals desiring training in
this field. Many of these developments were
chronicled in the Journal of Instructional Develop-
ment, a journal that was first published during
the 1970s and which was the forerunner to the
development section of Educational Technology
Research and Development.
The 1980s: Growth and Redirection
In many sectors, the interest in instructional
design that burgeoned during the previous
decade continued to grow during the 1980s.
Interest in the instructional design process
remained strong in business and industry
(Bowsher, 1989; Galagan, 1989) the military
(Chevalier, 1990; Finch, 1987; McCombs, 1986;)
and in the international arena (Ely & Plomp,
1986: Morgan, 1989).
In contrast to its influence in the aforemen-
tioned sectors, during the 1980s instructional
design had minimal impact in other areas. In the
public school arena, some curriculum develop-
ment efforts involved the use of basic instruc-
tional design processes (e.g., Spady, 1988), and
some instructional design textbooks for teachers
were produced (e.g., Dick & Reiser, 1989;
Gerlach & Ely, 1980; Sullivan & Higgins, 1983).
However, in spite of these efforts, evidence indi-
cated that instructional design was having little
impact on instruction in the public schools
(Branson & Grow, 1987; Burkman, 1987b;
Rossett & Garbosky, 1987). In a similar vein,
with a few exceptions (e.g., Diamond, 1989),
instructional design practices had a minimal
impact in higher education. Whereas instruc-
tional improvement centers in higher education
were growing in number through the mid-
1970s, by 1983 more than one fourth of these
organizations were disbanded and there was a
ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2
general downward trend in the budgets of the
remaining centers (Gustafson & Bratton, 1984).
Burkman (1987a, 1987b) provides an analysis of
the reasons why instructional design efforts in
schools and universities have not been success-
ful, and contrasts these conditions with the more
favorable conditions that exist in business and
the military.
During the 1980s, there was a growing inter-
est in how the principles of cognitive psychol-
ogy could be applied in the instructional design
process, and a number of publications outlining
potential applications were described (e.g., Bon-
ner, 1988; Divesta & Rieber, 1987; “Interview
with R.M. Gagné,” 1982; Low, 1980). However,
several leading figures in the field have indi-
cated that the actual effects of cognitive psychol-
ogy on instructional design practices during this
decade were rather small (Dick, 1987; Gustafson,
1993).
A factor that did have a major effect on
instructional design practices in the 1980s was
the increasing interest in the use of microcom-
puters for instructional purposes. With the
advent of these devices, many professionals in
the instructional design field turned their atten-
tion to producing computer-based instruction
(Dick, 1987; Shrock, 1995). Others discussed the
need to develop new models of instructional
design to accommodate the interactive capabili-
ties of this technology (Merrill, Li, & Jones,
1990a, 1990b). Moreover, computers began to be
used as tools to automate some instructional
design tasks (Merrill & Li, 1989).
In addition, the relatively new performance
technology movement, with its emphasis on
front-end analysis, on-the-job performance,
business results, and noninstructional solutions
to performance problems, was beginning to
have an effect on instructional design practices
(Rosenberg, 1988,1990; Rossett, 1990). It was
during the 1990s, however, that the field was
significantly affected by this movement.
The 1990s: Changing Views and
Practices
During the 1990s, a variety of developments had
a significant impact on instructional design prin-
ciples and practices. As indicated above, one of
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-30-2001 / 10:39
A HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
the major influences was the performance tech-
nology movement, which broadened the scope
of the instructional design field. As a result of
this movement, many instructional designers
began conducting more careful analyses of the
causes of performance problems, and oftentimes
discovered that poor training, or lack of training,
was not the cause. In many such instances,
instructional designers prescribed non-
instructional solutions, such as changes in incen-
tive systems or in the work environment, to
solve such problems (Dean, 1995). Thus the
types of activities many instructional designers
engaged in greatly expanded.
Another factor that affected the field during
the 1990s was the growing interest in construc-
tivism, a collection of similar views (labeled, by
some, as a theory) of learning and instruction
that gained increasing popularity throughout
the decade. The instructional principles associ-
ated with constructivism include requiring
learners to (a) solve complex and realistic prob-
lems; (b) work together to solve those problems;
(c) examine the problems from multiple perspec-
tives; (d) take ownership of the learning process
(rather than being passive recipients of instruc-
tion); and (e) become aware of their own role in
the knowledge construction process (Driscoll,
2000). During the past decade, constructivist
views of learning and instruction have had an
impact on the thoughts and actions of many the-
orists and practitioners in the instructional
design field. For example, the constructivist
emphasis on designing “authentic” learning
tasks—tasks that reflect the complexity of the
real-world environment in which learners will
be using the skills they are learning—has had an
effect on how instructional design is being prac-
ticed and taught (Dick, 1996). Although some
have argued that “traditional” instructional
design practices and constructivist principles
are antithetical, in recent years numerous
authors have described how consideration of
constructivist principles can enhance instruc-
tional design practices (e.g., Coleman, Perry, &
Schwen, 1997; Dick, 1996; Lebow, 1993; Lin et al.,
1996).
During the 1990s, rapid growth in the use
and development of electronic performance
support systems also led to changes in the
63
nature of the work performed by many instruc-
tional designers. Electronic performance support
systems are computer-based systems designed to
provide workers with the help they need to per-
form certain job tasks, at the time they need that
help, and in a form that will be most helpful.
Such systems often include an information base
that contains essential work-related information;
a series of work activities (often in the form of
tutorials and simulations) that workers can
access as desired; intelligent coaching and expert
advisement systems that provide guidance in
performing various activities; and customized
performance support tools that automate and
greatly simplify many job tasks (Wager & Mckay,
in press). By providing workers with the perfor-
mance tools and information they need, well-
designed electronic performance support
systems can reduce the need for training. It is not
surprising, then, that during the past decade a
number of training organizations and instruc-
tional designers turned a portion of their atten-
tion away from designing training programs and
toward designing electronic performance sup-
port systems (Rosenberg, 2001).
Rapid prototyping is another trend that has
had an effect on instructional design practices in
recent years. The rapid prototyping process
involves quickly developing a prototype prod-
uct in the very early stages of an instructional
design project and then going through a series of
rapid tryout and revision cycles until an accept-
able version of the product is produced (Gustaf-
son & Branch, 1997a). This design technique has
been advocated as a means of producing quality
instructional materials in less time than is
required when more conventional instructional
design techniques are employed. During the
1990s, there was an increasing interest in rapid
prototyping among practitioners and theorists
in the instructional design field (e.g., Gustafson
& Branch, 1997a; Jones & Richey, 2000).
Another recent trend that has affected the
instructional design profession has been the rap-
idly increasing interest in using the Internet for
distance learning. Since 1995, there has been a
great increase in the use of the Internet to deliver
instruction at a distance (Bassi & Van Buren,
1999; Lewis, Snow, Farris, Levin, and Greene,
1999). As the demand for distance learning pro-
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-30-2001 / 10:39
64
grams has grown, so has the recognition that in
order to be effective, such programs cannot sim-
ply be on-line replicas of the instruction deliv-
ered in classrooms; instead such programs must
be carefully designed in light of the instructional
features that can, and cannot, be incorporated
into Internet-based courses (Institute for Higher
Education Policy, 2000). As several authors have
pointed out, the need for high quality Internet-
based instruction already has created some new
job opportunities for instructional designers,
and is likely to create many more such opportu-
nities in the near future (Dempsey & Van Eck, in
press; Hawkridge, in press).
Knowledge management is one of the most
recent trends to have affected the field of instruc-
tional design. According to Rossett (1999),
knowledge management involves identifying,
documenting, and disseminating explicit and
tacit knowledge within an organization in order
to improve the performance of that organiza-
tion. Oftentimes, useful knowledge and exper-
tise within an organization reside with a
particular individual or group, but is not widely
known beyond that group or individual. How-
ever, current-day technologies such as database
programs, groupware, and intranets allow orga-
nizations to “manage” (i.e., collect, filter, and
disseminate) such knowledge and expertise in
ways that were not previously possible. Rosen-
berg (2001) describes several examples of orga-
nizations that have turned some of their
attention away from designing training pro-
grams and toward creating knowledge manage-
ment systems. Rossett and Donello (1999)
suggest that as the interest in knowledge man-
agement continues to grow, instructional
designers and other training professionals not
only will be responsible for improving human
performance, but also will be responsible for
locating and improving access to useful organi-
zational knowledge. Thus, the growing interest
in knowledge management is likely to change
and perhaps expand the types of tasks instruc-
tional designers are expected to undertake.
CONCLUSION
Although this article, appearing in two consecu-
tive issues of this journal, has provided separate
ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2
accounts of the history of instructional media
and the history of instructional design, there is
an obvious overlapping between these two
areas. Many instructional solutions arrived at
through the use of instructional design pro-
cesses require the employment of the types of
instructional media that were the focus of Part I
(i.e., media other than a teacher, chalkboard, or
textbook). Moreover, many individuals (e.g.,
Clark, 1994; Kozma, 1994; Morrison, 1994;
Reiser, 1994; Shrock, 1994) have argued that the
effective use of media for instructional purposes
requires careful instructional planning, such as
that prescribed by models of instructional
design. In the field of instructional design and
technology, those whose work is influenced by
the lessons learned from the history of media
and the history of instructional design will be
well-positioned to have a positive influence on
future developments within the field.
Robert A. Reiser is a professor in the Instructional
Systems program at Florida State University, and
may be reached by e-mail at rreiser@mailer.fsu.edu.
Portions of this article are from a chapter that will
appear in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and
Technology (Reiser & Dempsey, in press). Some
segments of the article previously appeared in a book
chapter by Reiser (1987).
The author would like to thank Walter Dick, Don
Ely, and Kent Gustafson, each of whom reviewed
various portions of this manuscript and provided
him with invaluable feedback.
REFERENCES
Andrews, D.H., & Goodson, L.A. (1980). A compara-
tive analysis of models instructional design. Journal
of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16.
Baker, E.L. (1973). The technology of instructional
development. In R.M.W. Travers (Ed.), Second hand-
book of research on teaching, Chicago: Rand McNally.
Banathy, B.H. (1968). Instructional systems. Belmont,
CA: Fearon.
Barson, J. (1967). Instructional systems development. A
demonstration and evaluation project: Final report. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. (ERIC Doc-
ument Reproduction Service No. ED 020 673)
Bassi, L.J., & Van Buren, M.E. (1999). Sharpening the
leading edge. Training and Development, 53(1), 23–33.
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., &
Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of educational goals. Hand-
book 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-30-2001 / 10:39
A HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
Bonner, J. (1988). Implications of cognitive theory for
instructional design. Educational Communication and
Technology Journal, 36, 3–14.
Borich, G.D. (1980). A state of the art assessment of educa-
tional evaluation. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 187
717)
Bowsher, J.E. (1989). Educating America: Lessons
learned in the nation’s corporations. New York:
Wiley.
Branson, R.K., & Grow G. (1987). Instructional systems
development. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.), Instructional
Technology: Foundations (pp. 397–428). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Branson, R.K., Rayner, G.T., Cox, J.L., Furman, J.P.,
King, FJ, & Hannum, W.H. (1975). Interservice proce-
dures for instructional systems development. Fort Mon-
roe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine
Command.
Burkman, E. (1987a). Factors affecting utilization. In
R.M. Gagné (Ed.), Instructional Technology: Founda-
tions (pp. 429–456). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Burkman, E. (1987b). Prospects for instructional sys-
tems design in the public schools. Journal of Instruc-
tional Development, 10(4), 27–32.
Cambre, M.A. (1981). Historical overview of formative
evaluation of instructional media products. Educa-
tional Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 3–
25.
Chadwick, C.B. (1986). Instructional technology
research in Latin America. Educational Communica-
tion and Technology Journal, 34, 247–254.
Chevalier, R.D. (1990). Improving efficiency and effec-
tiveness of training: A six year case study of system-
atic change. Performance and Instruction, 29(5), 21–23.
Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning.
Educational Technology Research and Development,
42(2), 21–29.
Coleman, Perry, & Schwen (1997). Constructivist
instructional development: Reflecting on practice
from an alternative paradigm. In C.R. Dills & A.J.
Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional Development Para-
digms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technol-
ogy.
Cronbach, L.J. (1963). Course improvement through
evaluation. Teachers’ College Record, 64, 672–683.w
Dale, E. (1967). Historical setting of programmed
instruction. In P.C. Lange (Ed.), Programmed instruc-
tion: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Dean, P.J. (1995). Examining the practice of human
performance technology. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 8(2), 68–94.
Dempsey, J.V., & Van Eck, R.N. (in press). Instruc-
tional design online: Evolving expectations. In R.A.
Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
65
Diamond, R.M. (1989). Designing and improving courses
and curricula in higher education: A systematic
approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Dick, W. (1987). A history of instructional design and
its impact on educational psychology. In J. Glover &
R. Roning (Eds.), Historical foundations of educational
psychology. New York: Plenum.
Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it sur-
vive the decade? Educational Technology Research and
Development. 44(3), 55–63.
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The systematic design of
instruction (1st ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Dick W., & Reiser, R.A. (1989). Planning effective
instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Divesta, F.J., & Rieber, L.P. (1987). Characteristics of
cognitive engineering: The next generation of
instructional systems. Educational Communication
and Technology Journal, 35, 213–230.
Driscoll, M.P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruc-
tion (2nd ed). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Ebel, R.L. (1962). Content standard test scores. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 22, 15–25.
Ely, D.P., & Plomp, T. (1986). The promises of educa-
tional technology: A reassessment. International
Review of Education. 32, 231–249.
Finch, C, R. (1987). Instructional systems development
in the military. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education,
24(4), 18–26.
Flanagan, J.C. (1951). Units, scores, and norms. In E.T.
Lindquist (Ed.), Educational Measurement. Washing-
ton, DC: American Council on Education.
Gaff, J.G. (1975). Toward faculty renewal: Advances in fac-
ulty, instructional, and organizational development. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gagné, R.M. (1962a). The acquisition of knowledge.
Psychological Review, 69, 355–365.
Gagné, R.M. (1962b). Introduction. In R.M. Gagné
(Ed.), Psychological principles in system development.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gagné, R.M. (1965a). The analysis of instructional
objectives for the design of instruction. In R. Glaser
(Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed learning, II:.
Data and directions. Washington, DC: National Edu-
cation Association.
Gagné, R.M. (1965b). The conditions of learning (1st ed.).
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gagné, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.).
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gagné, R.M., & Briggs, L.J. (1974). Principles of instruc-
tional design (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1992). Prin-
ciples of instructional design (4th ed.). New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Gagné, R.M., & Medsker, K.L. (1996). The conditions of
learning: Training applications. Fort Worth, TX: Har-
court Brace.
Galagan, P.A. (1989). IBM gets its arms around educa-
tion. Training and Development Journal, 43(1), 34–41.
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-30-2001 / 10:39
66
Gerlach, V.S., & Ely, D.P. (1971). Teaching and media: A
systematic approach (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Gerlach, V.S., & Ely, D.P. (1980). Teaching and media: A
systematic approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Glaser, R. (1962). Psychology and instructional tech-
nology. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training research and edu-
cation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the
measurement of learning outcomes: Some ques-
tions. American Psychologist, 18, 519–521.
Glaser, R. (1965). Toward a behavioral science base for
instructional design. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Teaching
machines and programmed learning, II: Data and direc-
tions. Washington, DC: National Education Associa-
tion.
Glaser, R., & Klaus, D.J. (1962). Proficiency measure-
ment: Assessing human performance. In R.M.
Gagné (Ed.), Psychological principles in system develop-
ment. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gustafson, K.L. (1993). Instructional design funda-
mentals: Clouds on the horizon. Educational Technol-
ogy, 33(2), 27–32.
Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (1997a). Revisioning
models of instructional development. Educational
Technology Research and Development. 45(3), 73–89.
Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (1997b). Survey of
Instructional Development Models (3rd ed.). Syracuse,
NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technol-
ogy.
Gustafson, K., & Bratton, B. (1984). Instructional
improvement centers in higher education: A status
report. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(2), 2–7.
Hamerus, D. (1968). The systems approach to instruc-
tional development: The contribution of behavioral sci-
ence to instructional technology. Monmouth: OR:
Oregon State System of Higher Education, Teaching
Research Division.
Hawkridge, D. (in press). Distance learning and
instructional design in international settings. In In
R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues
in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Heinich, R. (1970). Technology and the management of
instruction (Association for Educational Communi-
cations and Technology Monograph No. 4). Wash-
ington, DC: Association for Educational
Communications and Technology.
Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000). Quality on
the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based dis-
tance education [Online]. Available:
http://www.ihep.com/PUB.htm [2001, January
28].
Interview with Robert M. Gagné: Developments in
learning psychology: Implications for instructional
design; and effects of computer technology on
instructional design and development. (1982). Edu-
cational Technology, 22(6), 11–15.
Jones, T.S., & Richey, R.C. (2000). Rapid prototyping
ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2
methodology in action: A developmental study.
Educational Technology Research and Development,
48(2), 63–80.
Kemp, J.E. (1971). Instructional Design: A Plan for Unit
and Course Development. Belmont, CA: Fearon.
Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning:
Reframing the debate. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.
Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instruc-
tional systems design: Five principles toward a new
mindset. Educational Technology Research and Devel-
opment, 41(3), 4–16.
Lewis, L, Snow, K., Farris, E., Levin, D., & Greene, B.
(1999). Distance education at postsecondary institutions:
1997–98 (NCES 2000-013). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
Lin, X., Bransford, J.D., Hmelo, C.E., Kantor, R.J.,
Hickey, D.T., Secules, T., Petrosino, A.J., Goldman,
S.R., and the Cognition and Technology Group at
Vanderbilt (1996). Instructional design and develop-
ment of learning communities: An invitation to a
dialogue. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning
environments: Case studies in instructional design.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Low, W.C. (1980). Changes in instructional develop-
ment: The aftermath of an information processing
takeover in psychology. Journal of Instructional
Development, 4(2), 10–18.
Lumsdaine, A.A., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (1960). Teaching
machines and programmed learning: A source book.
Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Mager, R.F. (1962). Preparing objectives for programmed
instruction. Belmont, CA: Fearon.
Mager, R.F. (1977). The ‘winds of change’. Training and
Development Journal, 31(10), 12–20.
Mager, R.F. (1997). Preparing instructional objectives: A
critical tool in the development of effective instruction
(3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Perfor-
mance.
Markle, S.M. (1967). Empirical testing of programs. In
P.C. Lange (Ed.), Programmed instruction: The sixty-
sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
McCombs, B.L. (1986). The instructional systems
development (ISD) model: A review of those factors
critical to its successful implementation. Educational
Communications and Technology Journal, 34, 67–81.
Merrill, M.D., & Li, Z. (1989). An instructional design
expert system. Journal of computer-based instruction,
16(3), 95–101.
Merrill, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M.K. (1990a) Limitations
of first generation instructional design. Educational
Technology, 30(1), 7–11.
Merrill, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M.K. (1990b) Second gen-
eration instructional design (ID2). Educational Tech-
nology, 30(2), 7–14.
Miles, G.D. (1983). Evaluating four years of ID experi-
ence. Journal of Instructional Development, 6(2), 9–14.
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-30-2001 / 10:39
A HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
Miller, R.B. (1953). A method for man-machine task
analysis (Tech. Rep. No. 53-137). Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio: Wright Air Development Cen-
ter.
Miller, R.B. (1962). Analysis and specification of
behavior for training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training
research and education. Pittsburgh: University of Pitts-
burgh Press.
Morgan, R.M. (1989). Instructional systems develop-
ment in third world countries. Educational Technol-
ogy Research and Development, 37(1), 47–56.
Morrison, G.R. (1994). The media effects question:
“Unsolvable” or asking the right question. Educa-
tional Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 41–
44.
Partridge, M.I., & Tennyson, R.D. (1979). Graduate
programs in instructional systems: A review of
selected programs. Journal of Instructional Develop-
ment, 2(2), 18–26.
Redfield, D.D., & Dick, W. (1984). An alumni-practi-
tioner review of doctoral competencies in instruc-
tional systems. Journal of Instructional Development,
7(1), 10–13.
Reiser, R.A. (1987). Instructional technology: A his-
tory. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.), Instructional technology:
Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reiser, R.A. (1994). Clark’s invitation to the dance: An
instructional designer’s response. Educational Tech-
nology Research and Development, 42(2), 45–48.
Reiser, R.A. (in press). What field did you say you
were in? Defining and naming our field. In R.A.
Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.). (in press). Trends
and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Rosenberg, M.J. (1988). The role of training in a perfor-
mance-oriented organization. Performance and
Instruction, 27(2), 1–6.
Rosenberg, M.J. (1990). Performance technology:
Working the system. Training, 27(2), 42–48.
Rosenberg, M.J. (2001). e-Learning: Strategies for deliver-
ing knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Rossett, A. (1990). Performance technology and aca-
demic programs in instructional design and technol-
ogy: Must we change? Educational Technology, 30(8),
48–51.
Rossett, A. (1999). Knowledge management meets
67
analysis. Training and Development, 53(5), 63–68.
Rossett, A., & Donello, J.F. (1999). Knowledge manage-
ment for training professionals [Online]. Available:
http://defcon.sdsu.edu/3/objects/km/ [2001, Jan-
uary 28].
Rossett, A., & Garbosky, J. (1987). The use, misuse, and
non-use of educational technologists in public edu-
cation. Educational Technology, 27(9), 37–42.
Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational
technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodo1gy of evaluation. In
Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (American Edu-
cational Research Association Monograph Series on
Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Shrock, S.A. (1994). The media influence debate: Read
the fine print, but don’t lose sight of the big picture.
Educational Technology Research and Development,
42(2), 49–53.
Shrock, S.A. (1995). A brief history of instructional
development. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional tech-
nology: Past, present, and future. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Silber, K.H. (1982). An analysis of university training
programs for instructional developers. Journal of
Instructional Development, 6(1), 15–28.
Silvern, L.C. (1964). Designing instructional systems. Los
Angeles: Education and Training Consultants.
Skinner, B.F. (1954). The science of learning and the art
of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86–97.
Skinner, B.F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128,
969–977.
Spady, W.G. (1988). Organizing for results: The basis
for authentic restructuring and reform. Educational
Leadership, 46(2), 4–8.
Sullivan, H.J., & Higgins, N (1983). Teaching for compe-
tence. New York: Teachers College Press.
Tyler, R.W. (1975). Educational benchmarks in retro-
spect: Educational change since 1915. Viewpoints,
51(2), 11–31.
Wager, W.W., & Mckay, J. (in press). EPSS: Visions and
viewpoints. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.),
Trends and issues in instructional design and technology.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Walbesser, H.H., & Eisenberg, T.A. (1972). A review of
the research on behavioral objectives and learning hierar-
chies. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Center
for Science and Mathematics Education. (ERIC Doc-
ument Reproduction Service No. ED 059 900)
 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-30-2001 / 10:39

68 ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2

Announcing
ETR&D Award for
Outstanding Research on
Instructional Development

• Award: $250 will be presented to the winner during the AECT National
Convention to be held in Atlanta, GA in November 2001. Additionally,
the winning paper will be presented at the 2001 AECT convention and
published in Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D),
the refereed scholarly research journal published by the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology (AECT).

• For: The award will be given for the best paper describing research
findings that could be used to improve the process of instructional
design, development, and evaluation.

• Eligibility: The competition is open to all members of the Educational

Communications and Technology community. Co-authored papers are
acceptable.

• Guidelines: The paper must be an original unpublished work dealing

with research on the development of a learning system or an educational
technology application. It must include a scholarly analysis of related lit-
erature, a complete description of the developmental research project
with accompanying data, and original implications aimed at improving
the practice of instructional design, development, and evaluation. The
paper should be typed double spaced on 81⁄2 × 11″ paper, between 20 and
30 pages in length, and must conform to the Publications Manual of the
American Psychological Association, 4th Edition.

• Deadline: Entries must be postmarked no later than September 1, 2001.

• Submission: Submit four copies of the manuscript to:

Dr. James R. Klein
Division of Psychology in Education
Arizona State University
Box 870611
Tempe, AZ 85287-0611

• Selection: The selection of the winning paper will be the responsibility

of the editor and editorial board of the Development Section of ETR&D.
Only the best paper judged worthy of the award will win. An award will
not be made if none of the entries are deemed worthy.